Resilience of road networks to natural hazards: A systematic literature review

Q1 Engineering
Transportation Engineering Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-08 DOI:10.1016/j.treng.2026.100420
Yohannes Sisay Zeleke , Maurizio Tira , Chiara Scaini
{"title":"Resilience of road networks to natural hazards: A systematic literature review","authors":"Yohannes Sisay Zeleke ,&nbsp;Maurizio Tira ,&nbsp;Chiara Scaini","doi":"10.1016/j.treng.2026.100420","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Road networks are essential to societal functioning yet remain highly vulnerable to natural hazards and cascading disruptions. This study presents a systematic review of road network resilience, synthesizing resilience metrics, assessment methods, and research gaps. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, 109 peer-reviewed studies published between 2010 and 2025 were analyzed from the ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The results indicate that resilience assessment is primarily based on topology-based, functional performance-based, and hybrid metrics, with 31% of studies focusing on robustness and 25% emphasizing vulnerability and preparedness, while only 4% adopt fully integrated resilience frameworks. Methodologically, conventional approaches dominate the literature, including network analysis (24%), GIS-based methods (15%), and uncertainty modeling techniques (15%), alongside traffic assignment, traffic simulation, and agent-based modeling. In contrast, emerging approaches such as graph neural networks, deep reinforcement learning, digital twins, and hybrid data-driven frameworks are applied in no &gt;14% of the reviewed studies, indicating limited but increasing adoption. Despite methodological progress, persistent gaps remain, including limited link-level analysis, inadequate modeling of spatial and temporal traffic dynamics, weak predictive and real-time capability, and insufficient consideration of multi-hazard scenarios. The study highlights the need for integrated frameworks combining machine learning with analytical and simulation-based methods to enhance dynamic resilience assessment and support proactive decision-making.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34480,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Engineering","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100420"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666691X26000011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Road networks are essential to societal functioning yet remain highly vulnerable to natural hazards and cascading disruptions. This study presents a systematic review of road network resilience, synthesizing resilience metrics, assessment methods, and research gaps. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, 109 peer-reviewed studies published between 2010 and 2025 were analyzed from the ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The results indicate that resilience assessment is primarily based on topology-based, functional performance-based, and hybrid metrics, with 31% of studies focusing on robustness and 25% emphasizing vulnerability and preparedness, while only 4% adopt fully integrated resilience frameworks. Methodologically, conventional approaches dominate the literature, including network analysis (24%), GIS-based methods (15%), and uncertainty modeling techniques (15%), alongside traffic assignment, traffic simulation, and agent-based modeling. In contrast, emerging approaches such as graph neural networks, deep reinforcement learning, digital twins, and hybrid data-driven frameworks are applied in no >14% of the reviewed studies, indicating limited but increasing adoption. Despite methodological progress, persistent gaps remain, including limited link-level analysis, inadequate modeling of spatial and temporal traffic dynamics, weak predictive and real-time capability, and insufficient consideration of multi-hazard scenarios. The study highlights the need for integrated frameworks combining machine learning with analytical and simulation-based methods to enhance dynamic resilience assessment and support proactive decision-making.
道路网络对自然灾害的恢复力:系统的文献综述
道路网络对社会运作至关重要,但仍然极易受到自然灾害和连锁破坏的影响。本研究对路网弹性、综合弹性指标、评估方法和研究空白进行了系统综述。根据PRISMA 2020指南,我们分析了2010年至2025年间发表的109项同行评议研究,这些研究来自ScienceDirect、Scopus和Web of Science数据库。结果表明,弹性评估主要基于拓扑、功能性能和混合指标,31%的研究侧重于鲁棒性,25%的研究强调脆弱性和准备,而只有4%的研究采用了完全集成的弹性框架。在方法上,传统方法主导着文献,包括网络分析(24%)、基于gis的方法(15%)和不确定性建模技术(15%),以及交通分配、交通模拟和基于代理的建模。相比之下,图神经网络、深度强化学习、数字双胞胎和混合数据驱动框架等新兴方法在审查的研究中应用了不到14%,表明采用有限但正在增加。尽管在方法上取得了进步,但仍然存在持续的差距,包括有限的链路级分析,空间和时间交通动态建模不足,预测和实时能力弱,以及对多灾害情景的考虑不足。该研究强调需要将机器学习与基于分析和模拟的方法相结合的集成框架,以增强动态弹性评估并支持主动决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Transportation Engineering
Transportation Engineering Engineering-Automotive Engineering
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
90 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书